BristolUK

Then you need to investigate this as it's wrong.

leedsrhinos1971

I have to say that after a lot of research and advice from family and friends back in England especially about the current state of the economy, I now doubt I will ever move back to the UK on a permanent basis and that's even before you take into account the ridiculous restrictions that my American wife would have to endure just to settle in my home country. I have to say that I am very disappointed that it has come to this as I always envisioned myself being back in Leeds one day but my wife and kids have to come first and they want to stay in New Hampshire.

mikelincs

The time your fathers house will come into the equation is if he has to go into a home, then it will be classed as an asset, and may well have to be sold to pay for his care bills, but they are increasing the cap below which people will NOT have to fund their own care,

ldollard

i will thanks, this is what he told me himself.

ldollard

wishing you luck.

Lothianlad

The changes to the entire British Social Welfare system really is extremely radical, and some of the proposed changes have already come into effect as of 01 April 2013.

There is hardly anything in the entire Social Security system that will remain as previously, and among the changes already taking effect are those involving Housing Benefit where some of the measures, although absolutely necessary in the light of the widespread abuse hitherto perpetrated by recipients of this benefit, are really quite wide reaching.

And protests over the so called "Bedroom Tax" - incorrectly and deliberately referred to as such by the profligately wasteful Labour party and, of course, the luvvy lefty champagne socialists of the BBC elite - are really and truly out of proportion altogether as both Labour and the BBC choose to regard this measure as a direct tax on the "poor" when in fact it is not a tax at all - it is merely a means of ensuring that full use is made of publicly owned properties where rooms are left vacant when other tenants of need can benefit and lesss nweedy tenants are encouraged to move to other premises more suited to their requirements.

It's as simple as that, but Labour and their public and unofficial but oh! so very obvious mouthpiece the BBC refuse to accept so called "Tory" common sense, and to them the Conservatives will always be the Nasty Party. Yeah, right.....

Lorac05

Even though I agree that the benefits system needs to be radically reformed I do feel that this 'bedroom tax' is somewhat unfair as many people would need to move to 1 bedroom accommodation to ensure they lose no housing benefits and there is little of that available - thus people are being penalised unfairly in many cases.

And don't even get me going on the rampant unfairness of the child benefit reforms!!!!!!!

WhoFan63

Either that or the people who end up renting out their spare rooms will start charging an arm and a leg!

Sally Redux

I didn't even know that housing benefit could pay for you to have extra bedrooms, seems crazy to me but I know everyone is up in arms about it.

OP seems to be under the common misapprehension that taxes you pay in your lifetime go into a pot for your own use later in life when you feel like it.

Lorac05

It didn't. Housing benefit use to be paid to occupants of social/council housing as a set amount if you met the requirement of low income - regardless of the size of your house. Now the benefit is being paid in regards to how 'utilised' that property is. So if you have a 3 bed house and there is just a couple living there now (even if you use to have kids in the other bedrooms who have now moved out) the housing benefit will be cut by 2 bedrooms worth accordingly whereas prior to April 1st it was paid in regards to your income only. Many are complaining as they are unable to move to a smaller property as they aren't available.

The government is hoping the over haul of the benefit system will make more people seek employment - problem is there aren't always jobs available in the areas people live in - and even then they may be so low paying people will still need to seek housing benefit to pay their rent. I must admit I don't really get housing benefit when you are already in social housing - can't the rent be adjusted accordingly to help those who have lost jobs etc. instead of them claiming housing benefit?

Sally Redux

I admit I am out of the loop on this. However, part of me wonders why someone on housing benefit should be protected from having to downsize when their kids leave home.

Just thinking back, my grandparents used to live in a 3-bedroomed council house with my their daughter and grandson, when the younger ones moved out the council asked them to move to a small bungalow, which they did, but I believe it was voluntary.

rebs

My understanding of the situation is that this is something which has already been the case for people in receipt of housing benefit who rent in the private sector. As I understand it, in that situation, they receive housing benefit up to an amount that is considered the 'going rate' for housing in their area, of an appropriate size.

This new change is affecting those people on housing benefit who live in social housing (effectively what used to be council houses).

I think the main issue, is that lack of availability of social housing for people to downsize to. I think I read somewhere that Hull for example will have several thousand people affected by this new ruling and only has something like 70 properties which could be utilised for downsizing.

Housing benefit affects many many people - most of them working. As I understand it the vast majority of people in receipt of working age benefits are actually in work - and lots of them get housing benefit.

Sally Redux

Thanks rebs. It appears to involve other issues such as lack of social housing and low wages.

rebs

Yes - I think that is absolutely right.

You'll read from the likes of Lothianlad about the 'profligacy of the labour govt' when talking about the welfare state, and to some extent it cannot be denied that benefits were greatly expanded during the Labour years.

They introduced things like working tax credits and child tax credits to 'top up' low wages etc.

To my mind though, what is the alternative to that approach? Accept people (including families and children) being homeless or living in their cars, or in tent cities? Bring back the workhouses? Force companies to pay proper 'living wages' so the state does not have to step in?

At the moment, I cannot help but think that the people currently being 'punished' for the economic difficulties are the most vulnerable society - and those least able to bear the punishments...

Sally Redux

Ideally it should be approached from this angle. Currently the taxpayer is too often subsidising the profits of companies who do not pay a living wage. But yes, the grim alternatives which we see in the US should never happen in the UK. The Thatcher government's role in the reduction of social housing stock should not be forgotten.

Sadly, your last sentence is so often the case. It will also happen with the sequester over here.